Building the health-economic case for scaling up the WHO-HEARTS hypertension control package in low- and middle-income countries

[ABSTRACT]. Generally, hypertension control programs are cost-effective, including in low- and middle-income countries, but country governments and civil society are not likely to support hypertension control programs unless value is demonstrated in terms of public health benefits, budget impact, and value-for-investment for the individual country context. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) established a standard, simplified Global HEARTS approach to hypertension control, including preferred antihypertensive medicines and blood pressure measurement devices. The objective of this study is to report on health economic studies of HEARTS hypertension control package cost (especially medication costs), cost-effectiveness, and budget impact and describe mathematical models designed to translate hypertension control program data into the optimal approach to hypertension care service delivery and financing, especially in lowand middle-income countries. Early results suggest that HEARTS hypertension control interventions are either cost-saving or cost-effective, that the HEARTS package is affordable at between US$ 18-44 per person treated per year, and that antihypertensive medicines could be priced low enough to reach a global standard of an average <US$ 5 per patient per year in the public sector. This health economic evidence will make a compelling case for government ownership and financial support for national scale hypertension control programs.

[RESUMEN]. En general, los programas de control de la hipertensión son costo-eficaces, incluso en los países de ingresos bajos y medios. Aun así, es poco probable que los gobiernos nacionales y la sociedad civil apoyen los programas de control de la hipertensión a menos que se demuestre su valor en términos de beneficios para la salud pública, impacto presupuestario y valor de la inversión para el contexto individual del país. La Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS) implementaron la iniciativa HEARTS, un enfoque mundial estandarizado y simplificado para el control de la hipertensión, que incluye los medicamentos antihipertensivos y los dispositivos de medición de la presión arterial de preferencia. El objetivo de este estudio es informar sobre los estudios en el ámbito de la economía de la salud relativos al costo de las medidas de control de la hipertensión previstas en HEARTS (especialmente, de los medicamentos), la costo-efectividad y el impacto presupuestario, así como describir los modelos matemáticos diseñados para traducir los datos de este programa en un enfoque óptimo para la prestación y el financiamiento de los servicios de atención de la hipertensión, especialmente en países de ingresos medianos y bajos. Los primeros resultados indican que las intervenciones de HEARTS para el control de la hipertensión son de bajo costo o costo-eficaces, que el conjunto de medidas HEARTS es asequible, a un precio que oscila entre US$ 18 y US$ 44 al año por paciente tratado, y que los medicamentos antihipertensivos podrían tener un precio lo suficientemente bajo como para alcanzar un estándar medio mundial de <US$ 5 por paciente al año en el sector público. Estos datos del ámbito de la economía de la salud serán argumentos convincentes para que los gobiernos se involucren en los programas de control de la hipertensión a escala nacional y les brinden apoyo financiero.

[RESUMO]. Geralmente, os programas de controle de hipertensão são custo-efetivos, inclusive em países de baixa e média renda, mas os governos dos países e a sociedade civil provavelmente não apoiarão tais programas a menos que demonstrem valor em termos de benefícios à saúde pública, impacto orçamentário e retorno sobre o investimento no contexto individual do país. A Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) e a Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde (OPAS) criaram a Global HEARTS, uma abordagem padrão e simplificada ao controle da hipertensão arterial, que inclui medicamentos anti-hipertensivos preferidos e dispositivos para aferição da pressão arterial preferidos. O objetivo deste estudo é relatar os estudos de economia em saúde que analisaram o custo (especialmente custos de medicamentos), custo-benefício e impacto orçamentário do pacote HEARTS para controle da hipertensão e descrever modelos matemáticos elaborados para traduzir os dados do programa de controle de hipertensão em uma abordagem ideal para a prestação e financiamento de serviços de atenção às pessoas com hipertensão, especialmente em países de baixa e média renda. Os primeiros resultados sugerem que as intervenções HEARTS para controle da hipertensão são de baixo custo ou custo-efetivas, que o pacote HEARTS é acessível (custando de US$ 18 a 44 por pessoa tratada por ano) e que o preço dos medicamentos anti-hipertensivos poderia ser baixo o suficiente para atingir uma média global de <US$ 18 por paciente por ano no setor público. Estas evidências do campo da economia em saúde serão um argumento convincente para que os governos se responsabilizem por programas de controle de hipertensão em escala nacional e os dotem de recursos financeiros.

Building the health-economic case for scaling up the WHO-HEARTS hypertension control package in low- and middle-income countries / Argumentos de la economía de la salud para ampliar las medidas de control de la hipertensión de la iniciativa HEARTS de la OMS en los países de ingresos medianos y bajos / Ampliação do pacote de controle da hipertensão OMS-HEARTS em países de baixa e média renda: argumentos a partir da perspectiva da economia em saúde

ABSTRACT Generally, hypertension control programs are cost-effective, including in low- and middle-income countries, but country governments and civil society are not likely to support hypertension control programs unless value is demonstrated in terms of public health benefits, budget impact, and value-for-investment for the individual country context. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) established a standard, simplified Global HEARTS approach to hypertension control, including preferred antihypertensive medicines and blood pressure measurement devices. The objective of this study is to report on health economic studies of HEARTS hypertension control package cost (especially medication costs), cost-effectiveness, and budget impact and describe mathematical models designed to translate hypertension control program data into the optimal approach to hypertension care service delivery and financing, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Early results suggest that HEARTS hypertension control interventions are either cost-saving or cost-effective, that the HEARTS package is affordable at between US$ 18-44 per person treated per year, and that antihypertensive medicines could be priced low enough to reach a global standard of an average <US$ 5 per patient per year in the public sector. This health economic evidence will make a compelling case for government ownership and financial support for national scale hypertension control programs.

RESUMEN En general, los programas de control de la hipertensión son costo-eficaces, incluso en los países de ingresos bajos y medios. Aun así, es poco probable que los gobiernos nacionales y la sociedad civil apoyen los programas de control de la hipertensión a menos que se demuestre su valor en términos de beneficios para la salud pública, impacto presupuestario y valor de la inversión para el contexto individual del país. La Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS) implementaron la iniciativa HEARTS, un enfoque mundial estandarizado y simplificado para el control de la hipertensión, que incluye los medicamentos antihipertensivos y los dispositivos de medición de la presión arterial de preferencia. El objetivo de este estudio es informar sobre los estudios en el ámbito de la economía de la salud relativos al costo de las medidas de control de la hipertensión previstas en HEARTS (especialmente, de los medicamentos), la costo-efectividad y el impacto presupuestario, así como describir los modelos matemáticos diseñados para traducir los datos de este programa en un enfoque óptimo para la prestación y el financiamiento de los servicios de atención de la hipertensión, especialmente en países de ingresos medianos y bajos. Los primeros resultados indican que las intervenciones de HEARTS para el control de la hipertensión son de bajo costo o costo-eficaces, que el conjunto de medidas HEARTS es asequible, a un precio que oscila entre US$ 18 y US$ 44 al año por paciente tratado, y que los medicamentos antihipertensivos podrían tener un precio lo suficientemente bajo como para alcanzar un estándar medio mundial de <US$ 5 por paciente al año en el sector público. Estos datos del ámbito de la economía de la salud serán argumentos convincentes para que los gobiernos se involucren en los programas de control de la hipertensión a escala nacional y les brinden apoyo financiero.

RESUMO Geralmente, os programas de controle de hipertensão são custo-efetivos, inclusive em países de baixa e média renda, mas os governos dos países e a sociedade civil provavelmente não apoiarão tais programas a menos que demonstrem valor em termos de benefícios à saúde pública, impacto orçamentário e retorno sobre o investimento no contexto individual do país. A Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) e a Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde (OPAS) criaram a Global HEARTS, uma abordagem padrão e simplificada ao controle da hipertensão arterial, que inclui medicamentos anti-hipertensivos preferidos e dispositivos para aferição da pressão arterial preferidos. O objetivo deste estudo é relatar os estudos de economia em saúde que analisaram o custo (especialmente custos de medicamentos), custo-benefício e impacto orçamentário do pacote HEARTS para controle da hipertensão e descrever modelos matemáticos elaborados para traduzir os dados do programa de controle de hipertensão em uma abordagem ideal para a prestação e financiamento de serviços de atenção às pessoas com hipertensão, especialmente em países de baixa e média renda. Os primeiros resultados sugerem que as intervenções HEARTS para controle da hipertensão são de baixo custo ou custo-efetivas, que o pacote HEARTS é acessível (custando de US$ 18 a 44 por pessoa tratada por ano) e que o preço dos medicamentos anti-hipertensivos poderia ser baixo o suficiente para atingir uma média global de <US$ 18 por paciente por ano no setor público. Estas evidências do campo da economia em saúde serão um argumento convincente para que os governos se responsabilizem por programas de controle de hipertensão em escala nacional e os dotem de recursos financeiros.

Survival advantage of cohort participation attenuates over time: results from three long-standing community-based studies.

PURPOSE: Cohort participants usually have lower mortality rates than nonparticipants, but it is unclear if this survival advantage decreases or increases as cohort studies age. METHODS: We used a 1975 private census of Washington County, Maryland, to compare mortality among cohort participants to nonparticipants for three cohorts, Campaign Against Cancer and Stroke (CLUE I), Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease (CLUE II), and Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) initiated in 1974, 1989, and 1986, respectively. We analyzed mortality risk using time-truncated Cox regression models. RESULTS: Participants had lower mortality risk in the first 10 years of follow-up compared with nonparticipants (fully adjusted average hazard ratio [95% confidence intervals] were 0.72 [0.68, 0.77] in CLUE I, 0.69 [0.65, 0.73] in CLUE II, and 0.74 [0.63, 0.86] in ARIC), which persisted over 20 years of follow-up (0.81 [0.78, 0.84] in CLUE I, 0.87 [0.84, 0.91] in CLUE II, and 0.90 [0.83, 0.97] in ARIC). This lower average hazard for mortality among participants compared with nonparticipants attenuated with longer follow-up (0.99 [0.96, 1.01] after 30+ years in CLUE I, 1.02 [0.99, 1.05] after 30 years in CLUE II, and 0.95 [0.89, 1.00] after 30+ years in ARIC). In ARIC, participants who did not attend visits had higher mortality, but those who did attend visits had similar mortality to the community. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the volunteer selection for mortality in long-standing epidemiologic cohort studies often diminishes as the cohort ages.

Association of Undifferentiated Dyspnea in Late Life With Cardiovascular and Noncardiovascular Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis From the ARIC Study.

Importance: Undifferentiated dyspnea is common in late life, but the relative contribution of subclinical cardiac dysfunction is unknown. Impairments in cardiac structure and function may be characteristics of undifferentiated dyspnea in elderly people, providing potential insights into occult heart failure (HF). Objective: To quantify the association of undifferentiated dyspnea with cardiac dysfunction after accounting for other potential contributors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study participants 65 years and older who attended the fifth study visit (from 2011 to 2013) and had not been diagnosed with HF, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, morbid obesity, or severe kidney disease. Analyses were conducted from October 2017 to June 2018. Exposures: Dyspnea measured using the modified Medical Research Council scale, with a score less than 2 classified as none to mild and a score of 2 or more classified as moderate to severe. Main Outcomes and Measures: Using multivariable logistic regression, the association of undifferentiated dyspnea was defined using cardiac structure, systolic and diastolic function, pulmonary pressure (echocardiography), pulmonary function (spirometry), glomerular filtration rate, hemoglobin, body mass index, depression, and physical performance. The population-attributable risk was calculated for each dysfunction metric. Results: Among 4342 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.9 [5.0] years; 2533 [58.3%] women), 1173 (27.0%) had undifferentiated dyspnea. Moderate to severe dyspnea was present in 574 participants (13.2%) and was associated with left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.25-1.87; P < .001) and LV diastolic (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.20-1.78; P < .001) and systolic (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.56; P = .02) dysfunction. Moderate to severe dyspnea was also associated with obstructive (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28-1.99; P < .001) and restrictive (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.99-3.27; P < .001) findings on spirometry, renal impairment (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.08-1.61; P = .01), anemia (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.39-2.12; P < .001), lower (OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 2.18-3.51; P < .001) and upper (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.49-2.23; P < .001) extremity weakness, depression (OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.24-4.25; P < .001), and obesity (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.95-2.83; P < .001). After accounting for these, moderate to severe dyspnea was associated with LV hypertrophy (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.01-1.67; P = .04) and was not associated with systolic or diastolic function. In contrast, in the fully adjusted model, other organ system measures were associated with dyspnea, except for glomerular filtration rate and grip strength. The population-attributable risk of dyspnea associated with obesity alone was 22.6% compared with 5.8% for LV hypertrophy. Conclusions and Relevance: Undifferentiated dyspnea is multifactorial in older adults, and this study showed an association with obesity. When accounting for other relevant organ systems, cardiovascular function poorly discriminated those with vs those without dyspnea. Therefore, dyspnea should not be assumed to represent occult HF in this population.